individuals attempt to soothe their anxiety through
materialistic pursuits (2). Psychological science
can shed light on many such counterintuitive and
counterproductive responses to our ecological
predicament.

Human behavior is determined by forces both
inside and outside of the individual. Internal factors such as emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and values influence behavior to some extent (3–5), but
behavior occurs within a powerful context comprising cultural worldviews, social networks, status inequalities, policies, scripts, roles, and rules.
Situations are such potent determinants of behavior that behavior-change campaigns focused
solely on values, emotions, or knowledge are destined to fail if such change is not facilitated by
an individual’s social milieu as well as the surrounding infrastructure.

Humans are driven by external circumstances,
and yet all individuals have a hand in perpetuating or redirecting situational forces. The current ecologically destructive trajectory cannot be
reversed without human action to radically transform the anthropogenic and anthropocentric systems that encourage, support, and reinforce overly
consumptive, wasteful, and polluting lifestyles,
particularly in the industrialized world. At present, these systems make truly sustainable living
unappealing and impractical, if not impossible,
for most individuals living in them. Thus, despite
widespread recognition of the dangerous course
that we are on as a species, humanity has not yet
begun the radical transformations that are clearly
needed.

Change is hard. Human beings are reticent
to change their behavior even under the most
compelling of circumstances, and environmental
dangers do not tend to arouse the kind of urgency
that motivates individuals to act. Mass transformation of unsustainable systems will be even
more difficult than shifting individual behaviors,
for unlike ants and bees, humans are not well
equipped to coordinate behavior for common
benefit. Armed with psychological self-awareness,
however, people can address barriers to change.
We summarize some of these barriers below,
followed by discussions of the critical need for
collective and organizational action, the role of
individuals in creating large-scale change, and
reconnection with nature as the foundation of
true sustainability.

Why changing individual
behavior is hard

To understand the roots of today’s environmentalcrises, one must first look to the evolutionaryorigins of human behavior. Urbanization, indus-trialization, and technological innovation havetransformed the very foundations of human ex-istence, creating a vastly different landscape andlifestyle from those in which the human speciesevolved, and to which our brains and bodies areadapted. Some psychologists argue that urbanindustrialized living compromises an individual’ssense of kinship with nonhuman nature (6, 7),thereby opening the door to environmentally de-structive behavior. Simply put, humans don’t protectwhat they don’t know and value. Indeed, numer-ous studies have found a significant positive cor-relation between feeling connected to nature andecologically responsible behavior (4) and between

“significant life experiences” in nature during
childhood and later environmental advocacy (8).
Experiencing the self as separate from nature is
the foundation of humanity’s damaged relationship to planetary resources.

The mismatch between humans’ ancient origins and today’s industrialized world leads to an
array of other difficulties in recognizing and responding to environmental degradation. Humans
evolved in a world where dangers were sudden
and obvious, and thus our senses are ill equipped
to detect largely invisible and gradually worsening ecological problems such as climate change
or species extinction. Without a tangible sensory
signal and attendant emotional jolt, these problems feel psychologically distant and do little to
move us to action (9).

Also, because systemic problems like these do
not represent an immediate threat to the individual, their associated long-term consequences
are less motivating than consequences in the here
and now (10). Many of today’s environmentally
damaging behaviors present just such a contingency trap, where personal benefits (or costs) are
much more compelling than far-off and hard-to-detect ecological costs (or benefits). The salience
of short-term consequences explains why individuals are unwilling to surrender the convenience
of a personal car or to spend money on energy
efficiency measures that not only save money in
the long run but also help curb greenhouse gas
emissions.

A similar dilemma arises when individuals are
faced with a contradiction between self-interested
behavior and what is ultimately best for the larger
group (11, 12). The features that normally curtail
selfishness and encourage cooperation are effectively missing in large-scale environmental commons dilemmas such as global climate change.
Working together to conserve a common-pool resource is difficult in the absence of enforceable
limits on who can access the resource, strong social connections among community members, and
opportunities for face-to-face communication (13).

Even when individuals are willing to forgoimmediate personal benefits in favor of the long-term greater good, efforts to change are stymiedif a new behavior threatens psychological needs.Beyond basic physical requirements, human well-being depends on feeling competent, socially con-nected, and free to make choices (14, 15). Manybehaviors are motivated by a desire to fulfill theseneeds, and humans tend to avoid activities andsituations that compromise them. Adopting sus-tainable behavior that involves learning new ac-tions (such as composting or a different methodfor commuting) can at first be intimidating, makingindividuals feel uncertain, incompetent, or fear-ful of others’ disapproval or rejection.

Humans have a range of other psychological
needs as well, such as a need for safety and security, and a desire to see the world as a stable
and just place. Dire environmental news creates
a conflict with these deep-seated needs, as it implies that all is not well with the status quo (16)
and, in the extreme case, may prompt unconscious
and deeply uncomfortable fears of death (2). In
response to these existential threats, people may
turn to coping defenses such as denial or distraction (2), especially if they have little hope that
action will make a difference (17).

The need for social connection is perhaps the
most influential of all, yet individuals greatly underestimate the extent to which their behavior
is subject to social influence (18). Concerns about
social inclusion are undoubtedly rooted in the evolutionary past. For ancestral humans, acceptance
by the group meant access to shared resources
and protection. Modern humans retain a keen
sensitivity to social dynamics; this manifests as
strong emotional reactions to threats of rejection.
Social norms, therefore, constrain human behavior,
as the mere thought of doing something drastically
different from what others are doing (descriptive
norms), or what others appear to approve of (
injunctive norms), can lead to intense feelings of
discomfort, embarrassment, or shame. For environmentally relevant behaviors, these two types
of norms are often at odds: Most people approve
of sustainable behaviors but behave in unsustainable ways. Which norm exerts greater influence depends on their relative salience in a given
situation (19, 20).

Whether particular social norms are relevant
to an individual depends on that person’s group
affiliations. Individuals identify with ingroups
based on factors including demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender); social circumstances
(e.g., economic status, geography); and beliefs or
values (e.g., politics, religion). Humans behave according to the norms of their affinity groups so
as to fit in, and also to display this social identity
to the world. Conforming to norms promoting
sustainable behavior may actually feel threatening
to individuals whose identity is perceived to be
at odds with being “green.”

Strong identity affiliations can also erupt into
intergroup conflict, evident in the anger and antipathy between those who embrace the scientific
consensus on climate change and its skeptics (21).
This divide, found in several Western countries,
falls largely along ideological lines, with followers
of conservative parties showing far less concern

“Psychological research
suggests that humans can
move toward a sustainable
society by creating
conditions that motivate
environmentally responsible
collective action...”